Talk:Historic counties of England/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How long did the historic counties last?

Hi,

I am reading this article with no prior knowledge of the topic and I find it confusing. Would it be possible to add a summary in the lead paragraph of how long the counties lasted? "Several hundred years" doesn't really tell us anything. Is there some date when the historic counties were finally abolished? That could be used as an end date.--Gheuf 21:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The "historic", "real" or "traditional" counties were never abolished, only HM the Queen can do that by Royal Decree (which Her Majesty has never done). Paliament has even stated that "it cannot abolish, what it did not create". What happened in 1974 was the abolishment of many county councils, which are quite separate entities from the actual counties. The changes were meant to be for better administration only and weren't meant to replace local sense of identities. However maps were changed (mostly due to the fact that up-to-date maps of the UK had to show administrative units by law), the Post office adopted many of these "new" counties and Emergency services were renamed after many of the new administrative units. Its not surprising is it then, that since then a whole generation have grown up not always knowing their true birthright. For instance many people would look at you as if you were stupid if you said the great cities of Liverpool and Manchester were in Lancashire! Not that it matters as I believe the artificial EU "English Regions" will one day replace our counties. Shame.

The previous unsigned comment appears to have been entered from IP address 84.69.61.172 at 19:00, February 7, 2007.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. It seems to raise the question, "What does it mean for a county to exist?" This is a philosophical question interesting perhaps in itself but distinct from the one I would like answered. The article says "the counties were used for administrative purposes for several hundred years": when did this start and stop? This is separate from the cultural question, whether people "feel" part of their traditional county, and also from the philosophical question, whether a countys' ghostly existence has been, or can ever be, terminated.--Gheuf 21:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It's hard (impossible?) to establish the start date for administrative uses: as the article says "late middle ages" is a good comprise. It might be said to start whenever high sheriffs were first appointed which is I think pre-Norman, however the number and boundaries of counties kept evolving for centuries after that.
There are a number of possible "end points": 1844 when the boundaries were regularised, 1889 from which date counties were altered to follow the areas of county councils and county boroughs, or 1974 when there was a complete recasting. You could also go with 1918 when the parliamentary counties were realigned to the local government boundaries. This was the last use of them for anything governmental, I believe, and the census stopped compiling figures after that. I'd go with 1889, but that's just my POV. Lozleader 23:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
If there is no start date, and there is no end date, then on what basis do we contrast "historic" with "modern" counties? Why don't we just say that county boundaries have changed over time?--Gheuf 21:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Winchcombeshire

Seeing as we have a mention of Hexhamshire, shouldn't we include Winchcombeshire: not sure whether to put it under Midlands or Southern England (it had something to do with Mercia, not Wessex). Lozleader 10:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Cornwall

Although Cornwall is not normally reckoned to be a County Palatine, the Duchy of Cornwall has always enjoyed all the rights and priviledges of being such. Is there a neat way to indicate this on the list or is this something for a short paragraph underneath? AulaTPN 08:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Extent of Cheshire at the time of the Domesday Book

I'm busy trying to work up the History of Cheshire into something more in accordance with wikipedia's standards for good articles. In the light of this, I want to raise the following point: One sees in various places on wikipedia the mention that Cheshire's northern boundary used to be roughly the River Ribble in Lancashire, but my own reading of the subject shows the evidence is rather thin on verifying this fact. As far as I can see, the Victoria History of the County of Cheshire, Vol 1 (which also refers to the relevant parts of the Lancashire books in the series) expresses uncertainty about this of sufficient degree to make the degree of certainty of the various statements on wikipedia, along with the map on the article itself, inaccurate. This, in turn, leads to the claims themselves becoming inaccurate. Since the Victoria History series is a highly regarded source of well-researched and verified information, I think it needs to be given close attention. The best section that summarizes the situation as verified by the Victoria History of the County of Chester, Vol 1 is this, on page 252:

Certainly there were links between Cheshire and south Lancashire before 1000, when Wulfric Spot held lands in both territories.[ref given] Wulfric's estates remained grouped together after his death, when they were left to his brother Aelfhelm, and indeed there still seems to have been some kind of connexion in 1086, when south Lancashire was surveyed together with Cheshire by the Domesday commissioners. Nevertheless, the two territories do seem to have been distinguished from one another in some way and it is not certain that the shire-moot and the reeves referred to in the south Lancashire section of Domesday were the Cheshire ones.[ref given and my emphasis]

In the light of this, I would suggest that the entries and the map that baldly claim that Cheshire possessed the lands between the Mersey and the Ribble are misleading, and should be altered accordingly.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


Probable mistake.

In the section on the Midlands you have Rutland associated with Nottinghamshire.

I believe this should Leicestershire instead. Notice that Rutland does not share a border with Nottinghamshire.

I grew up in Leicestershire(born 1955)and when I was young all the county-related vehicles (fire trucks etc) said "Leicestershire and Rutland...". Rutland was absorbed into Leicestershire when the counties were redrawn in the early 1970's.

Bryn.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.244.205 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 15 June 2007

When you say "you have Rutland" - Everyone can edit articles on wikipedia, there is no "you", feel free to make amendments if you can provide a verifiable source for it. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
the fact that Rutland does not share a border with Nottinghamshire is a red-herring. Many exclaves or detached parts of counties existed before widespread reform in the nineteenth century. Intead, I refer you to the Domesday Book, in which, it has been reported, "The north-western part of the county of Rutland was recorded as Rutland, a detached part of Nottinghamshire, in the Domesday Book; the south-eastern part as the wapentake of Wicelsea in Northamptonshire. It was first mentioned as a separate county in 1159, but as late as the 14th century it was referred to as the 'Soke of Rutland'." (see History of Rutland, though this cannot be taken as definitive evidence). In an online article largely based on the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Brittannica, we read:
The district which is now Rutland was probably occupied by a tribe of Middle Angles in the 6th or 7th century, and was subsequently absorbed in the kingdom of Mercia. Although mentioned by name in the will of Edward the Confessor, who bequeathed it to his queen Edith for life with remainder to Westminster Abbey, Rutland did not rank as a county at the time of the Domesday Survey, in which the term Rutland is only applied to that portion assessed under Nottinghamshire, while the S.E. portion of the modern county is surveyed under Northamptonshire, where it appears as the wapentake of Wiceslea. Rutland is first mentioned as a distinct county under the administration of a separate sheriff in the pipe roll of 1159, but as late as the 14th century it is designated "Rutland Soke" in the Vision of Piers Plowman, and the curious connexion with Nottinghamshire, a county which does not adjoin it at any point, was maintained up to the reign of Henry III., when the sheriff of Nottingham was by statute appointed also escheator in Rutland. Of the five modern hundreds of Rutland, Alstoe and Martinsley appear in the Domesday Survey of Nottinghamshire as wapentakes, Martinsley at that date including the modern hundred of Oakham Soke; East hundred and Wrangdike hundred are mentioned in the middle of the 12th century, the latter formerly including the additional hundred of Little Casterton. The shire-court for Rutland was held at Oakham.
(webpage here.)
So, unless one only considers very recent history, I don't think Rutland has ever been associated with Leicestershire. However, in this case, as in the case of the claims about Cheshire, which I noted above, there does seem to be some lack of clarity and hence slight inaccuracy in the claims that "Rutland was an anomalous territory or Soke, associated with Nottinghamshire, that eventually became considered the smallest county." (see marticle), because it is incomplete.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Article on historic counties

Please note that I am close to completing an article which will address these concerns mentioned above:

1) List/table showing which went on to become administrative and non-metropolitan counties and which did not (and how the ancient subdivisions were used as the basis for some admin counties) 2) Expanded references 3) Section detailing role of the ancient counties - still needs work.

It will also include a list of e.g. County emblems, official County flowers and (where applicable) County flags.

I invite anyone with an interest in this subject to contact me, in which case I'll be pleased to send a draft of the article in the hope that it can be improved further before posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Bennett (talk • contribs) 09:14, 12 August 2007

I have an interest in this subject, but believe the article is more than adequate, and I'd object to much of your plans. On your points:
1) List/table is not required - it's coverered within the prose already.
2) References are of a high quality on this article. Material from CountyWatch or it's affliates are not reliable sources.
3) Some of the role of the ancient counties could be elaborated on perhaps, though we shouldn't get over-detailed about specific Counts etc. Perhaps something on the Hundreds and Wapentakes might be useful.
4) I wholly object to the inclusion of County emblems and county flowers, as for the most part, these are contemporary vexological devices assigned unofficially and thus would be an anachronism. Jza84 20:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Corrected Misleading information about Cheshire—Done

As i mentioned on this page some time ago, I've now added material to correct the misleading account of the northern border of Cheshire at the time of the Domesday book. I've left it with two outstanding issues: the first one is the status of the small map that says it depicts the state of the counties at the time of the Domesday Survey. In the light of the authoritative sources I've referenced, it is misleading. I've stated that in a footnote, but I wonder whether the map ought to be re-drawn. The second issue is concerned with the format for referencing. I've noticed that the references and full details of these that I have given are a bit more complete than the ones currently given (for example, I give the ISBN number and the place and publishers, as well as formatti9ng them slightly differently.) I've left them as they are, placing them in a separate bibliography section, as this use is one I've used before, and seems more suited to a situation where one is referencing multiple times, the same sources but with different page numbers for some of them. Would people object at all if I slowly made all non-website references conform to this method (placing them in a bibliography section, allowing them to be noted in a shorthand way in the notes section), or should I fit them in with what has been done before? A compromise might be to include the publishers and ISBN numbers on all the books so far referenced, but to merge mine in with the rest. I'm happy to go either way, and will work to whatever consensus agrees upon here.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

...and traditional

Having reviewed the literature on the subject, I cannot find evidence or a suitable reference for the ancient/historic counties in this article being known as traditional. The nearest I came to this was a reference to traditional boundaries (e.g. The traditional boundary with Somerset was restored). The only use of the concept of traditional counties relates to the ABC lobby group. MRSC • Talk 12:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This was my concern too, a long while back, when I proposed we change the name of the article to reflect this. I think "traditional" deserves a mention, but perhaps moreso in the restoration section, as part of ABC's efforts?? -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a need to have "traditional" somewhere in here so that it can be pointed to in other wiki articles? if so, perhaps a (brief) sub-section about its use could be added, and any desired links could point directly to that sub-section? However, it may well be that there just is too little information to justify even a sub-section.
I've been thinking about the errors discovered in the claims made in this article (one corrected, above, and the other about Rutland not yet corrected), and think the referencing could be improved so that specific page numbers of books could pin-point where the information can be found. I think it would be a good idea to try to move towards doing that for this article, given the nature of it and issues surrounding it which have occupied editors on wikipedia from time to time.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've moved it to the restoration section, replacing 'ancient and geographic'. MRSC • Talk 17:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rutland again

W. L. Warren, The Myth of Norman Administrative Efficiency: The Prothero Lecture, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th Ser., Vol. 34. (1984), pp. 113-132. [1]

Rutland is, according to Warren, "a striking example of Norman administrative bumbling" and a "by-product of tenth century history".

He states that the territories liberated from the Danes were shired "in the English fashion by hundreds and hides" as Bedfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire. When the Five Boroughs submitted four of them became Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire "though retaining their subdivision into wapentakes and their Danish form of assessment".

The fifth of the "five boroughs" - Stamford - had only three wapentakes. Warren reckons that Stamford was constituted a royal soke: a "special jurisdiction" under direct royal control.

He goes on to note there were a number of similar sokes in eastern England, including the Soke of Peterborough and the Liberty of Bury St Edmunds (which eventually became West Suffolk).

He reckons that the status of Stamford as a soke was a temporary expediency for strategic reasons. Prior to the conquest the area had been divided:

  • Stamford was in Lincolnshire,
  • the southern wapentake had passed to Northamptonshire (and had been converted into a "double hundred" reassessed in hides).
  • The two other wapentakes were "reckoned as part of" Nottinghamshire "to make up a deficiency in its assessment" and were still divided ino caracutes.

The Domesday Book recorded this situation.

By the time of the pipe roll of 1130 the Notinghamshire and Northamptonshire portions (assessed in hides and caracutes respectively) were considered a single district of Roteland under the control of royal forest officers. The sheriffs of Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire were seemingly still nominally in charge but were exempted from collecting geld in Roteland. This situation persisted until the 13th century. In the reign of King John when Rutland was removed from Northants and Notts and given its own sheriff. In a footnote he adds the caveat that "the evidence for the status of Rutland at the end of the twelfth century is equivocal", and that it was described as a comitatus in a royal charter of 1204,.

Warren attributes the creation of the territory of "Roteland" to William I's appropriation of royal estates in the area, which were supposed to pass to Westminster Abbey on the death of Queen Edith in 1075. As the area was good hunting land, he took it for a royal forest.

He concludes by asking: Why, we may ask, did the government persist for so long with an administrative fiction? The answer is that Domesday Book did not recognise the separate entity of Rutland but recorded it as divided between Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire, and for a century after its completion Domesday Book was sacrosanct: it was the administrators' bible.

He cites the following works which might be worth sniffing out:

  • C. Phythian Adarns, Rutland reconsidered, in Mercian Studies, ed. A. Dornier (Leicester, 1977), 63-84
  • F.M. Stenton, Rutland: introduction to the Domesday Survey, Victoria County History of Rutland, i. pp. 121 - 136.

Lozleader (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In short, am I right in thinking are you saying that Rutland ought to be omitted as a Domesday county? If this is the case, ought the map currently being used be ammended for the discrepencies of Cheshire and Rutland? All this is good wholesome scholarly research! -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes it looks that way. Lozleader (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Certainly does! I'll see what I can do for the map (though can't promise anything :-) ) -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
OK I've just given the map a blast in Adobe Photoshop. You may have to refresh your browsers to see the changes. I've changed the northern boundary of Cheshire and amalgamated Rutland with Northamptonshire - let me know if that's what the intention was, or if I can fix this further. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The decision about Rutland is what i found out some time ago as well, and so it is good to get some movement on that front. I do, however, have some suggestions about further changes to the excellent work done by Jza84 on editing the map: First, Rutland. The problem is that the area roughly occupied by Rutland in the unedited map was divided between Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire, and there may be a need to explain that a detached part of Nottinghamshire lies there (it is probably too small to be shown clearly on the map.) Secondly, Cheshire. The edited map nows shows that the area of land north of the Mersey was in the old county of Yorkshire, when I don't believe the evidence is there for taht either:. Instead (although I do not have the appropriate sources to really confirm this to hand) I have a vague memory that it may not have been in any county at that time. If this were confirmed, we need some means of denoting an "unshired" area on the map. The second issue with Cheshire which has gradually dawned on me after reading about it in some detail, is that it does not include two hundreds that were originally in the county, but which now form part of wales (Atiscross and Exestan were their names.) Clear maps of the extent of these are found in the appropriate Victoria History volume (pages 340 and 341 of Volume 1, in fact) Now that I have various PC issues resolved, I may be able to provide a rough drawing of the shape of the county if it is felt that these should be included (I think they should be!)

The legend of the map needs to be altered, by the way (I'll do that if people want). Perhaps it is there that a comment or footnote can explain the detached part of Nottinghamshire business. as well as the changed boundary of England at that time to include the two lost hundreds of Cheshire?  DDStretch  (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

NW England in Domesday

From the same article quoted above:

"The territories which later formed Lancashire appear in separate parts of Domesday Book. The northern half appears, sketchily, in the Yorkshire folios, assessed in Danish carrucates, but organised in Northumbrian chieftainries which the Normans converted into the baronies of Amounderness and Lonsdale....

The southern half appears in Domesday Book as an appendage to Cheshire, under the heading 'Between Ribble and Mersey'". Lozleader (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly much of what became South East Lancs was omitted from the Domesday book, partly (as I understand) because of the Danelaw which had ravaged the area - could be fanciful text I've read somewhere though, so correct me if I'm wrong on that one. According to the Amounderness and Lonsdale (hundred) articlee, these were apparently older than the County of Lancaster, and originally part of Yorkshire, which seems to back up where we're taking this. Wasn't Carlisle part of County Durham or Northumbria at some point prior to the 12th century however? I seem to remember reading this somewhere. The current Domesday map also suggests that Northumbria had exacting boundaries with the "historic county boundaries".
Another descrepency could be the Anglo-Scottish border; wasn't Berwick-upon-Tweed (and other border settlements) part of Scotland at the time of the Domesday survey? Also, how do we tackle the Lord of the Isle of Wight - surely the Isle wasn't a county (or technically part of England) in 1086? Just throwing a few points out there!...
I suppose I could introduce dashed or diminished boarderlines to some of the disputed territories. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Jza84, but Lonsdale and Amounderness could well have been part of Yorkshire before Lancashire came into existence, and still not have been part of Yorkshire at the time of Domesday. That is what I have a vague memory of reading about somewhere. The problem is what do we do about it?  DDStretch  (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Yes, that corresponds with my memory of reading about it. In the case of Cheshire, the inclusion seems now unlikely to have been done because the area was actually part of Cheshire (Inter Ripam et Mersham was the actual phrase used to describe it in Domesday). The same could have happened with the area north of the Ribble (Ripam in the Latin phrase), though I wish I had a written source that either states or refutes the idea of uncertainty.

Nothern England in Domesday

In fact, now I am attending to this issue, another problem with the map occurs to me: the area in the north east and far north west was not even surveyed at the time, and so it seems misleading to denote Northumberland separately, and the rest as part of some "Greater Yorkshire". Although we cannot use wikipedia as a source for itself, the following paragraph from Domesday Book (its in the first section) accurately describes what my memory tells me was the case:

Domesday Book is really two independent works. One, known as Little Domesday, covers Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. The other, Great Domesday, covers the rest of England, except for lands in the north that would later become Westmorland, Cumberland, Northumberland and County Durham (because some of these lands were under Scottish control at the time). There are also no surveys of London, Winchester and some other towns. The omission of these two major cities is probably due to their size and complexity. Cumberland is missing because it was not conquered until some time after the survey and the Prince-Bishop William of St. Carilef had the exclusive right to tax Durham; the omission of the other counties has not been fully explained. Parts of the North East of England were covered by the 1183 'Boldon Book', which listed those areas liable to tax by the Bishop of Durham.

if this is the case, the entire northern part of the map could well be potentially misleading as a county is included which was not a "Domesday book" county, and northern parts of what is now England are included when, at the time, they were part of Scotland. I suspect if we agree upon this, the map needs some more radical editing, and some means of indicating potentially "unshired" areas is required.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit conflict!... It seems there are lots, and lots of issues. But what strikes me as a possible solution is a map for Great Domesday, and another for Little Domesday? OR... something we could do, but I'm reluctant to say really, is remove the map altogether as original research. Certainly there are lots of ammendments here, like the Wales-Cheshire boundary which is an intresting one you pointed out. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(another edit conflict)

I really think at the moment we should simply remove the map as WP:OR because it is clearly an original synthesis of material from different sources. As we have seen, it isn't even totally accurate, because it relies on supposition. If we remove the map, we could then have separate maps of Little Domesday and Greater Domesday "overlaid" on a standard map of Great Britain. It would also need some explanation in the main text, I suggest. We need to attend to correcting the existing text as well. It just illustrates how oversimplified and inaccurate some of the facts stated in the Historic Counties movement can become, I think.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with these suggestions. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made a tentative start at clarifying the text concerning the scope of the survey in the north of the country. If no one else objects, I will be prepared to remove the map, and we can take it on from there. Should we have a new map pre-prepared, so that we can "slot in" the new maps as soon as the old map is removed? It might lessen the potential problems of people thinking we were mucking around if we did that.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Did the LGA 1888 alter the counties?

The answer is no, it did not. Read on for the evidence.

Post-1889 census reports

Let's start with the 1891 census. The preliminary report has this to say about the counties:

"The counties to which the figures given above refer are the old historical areas, that is, the areas which are ordinarily meant when the term county is used. But there are also other areas that are designated by the same title, namely, the registration or union counties, which are aggregates of registration districts or poor law unions, and since the passing of the Local Government Act of 1888, the administrative counties'. These latter differ from the ancient counties, firstly, in that certain urban sanitary districts which lie partly in one and partly in another ancient county are for administrative purposes included in that county which contains the larger portion of the population, and secondly, in that many of the larger towns have been made into county boroughs, and have administrative powers of their own."

It is very clear from this wording that the LGA 1888 created a new set of counties for administrative purposes and that the word "county" was still assumed to refer to the historic counties. The following phrase is then used:

"The figures for the ancient counties or counties proper".

This is pretty unambiguous. Five years after the 1888 Act the "counties proper" were considered to be the historic counties, not the administrative counties with their associated county boroughs.

Now let's go to the 1901 census and the preliminary report:

"The counties referred to in the last table and in the foregoing remarks are the old historical areas, i.e., the ancient or geographical areas which are ordinarily understood by the term county".

Similar wording to the 1891 report.

From the 1911 census general report, this is from the population section:

"Much, however, still remains to be done in the direction of diminishing the confusion and overlapping of boundaries, and there are still three kinds of Counties, with their constituent parts, the Ancient, the Registration and the Administrative, all of which have to be separately distinguished in the Census Reports.

Ancient or geographical Counties are the basis of the Parliamentary County Divisions as constituted by the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885."

And:

"Administrative Counties were created by the Local Government Act of 1888; they number 62, and the boundaries of these modern counties differ in nearly every case from the boundaries not only of the Registration Counties (see page 45), but also of the Ancient Counties."

The 1921 general report makes it clear that the new boundaries are administrative:

"earlier records referring to the ancient county and those since 1891 corresponding to the areas within the more recently constituted administrative boundaries."

It goes on to explain why records are no longer published for the historic counties:

"With the redistribution of seats which has taken place under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, the statistical interest in the ancient or geographical county upon which the old parliamentary divisions were based has, except from its historical aspect, almost disappeared."

Clearly, the counties still exist. But they are no longer used for public administration, hence the GRO has no need to collect data for them.

The Comprehensive Gazetteer of England and Wales, 1894-5

The Comprehensive Gazetteer of England and Wales, 1894-5, a definitive reference work of the time, takes the same approach as the GRO. It refers to Middlesex as "bounded on the N by Herts, on the E by Essex, on the SE by Kent, on the S and the SW by Surrey, and on the W by Bucks". It goes on to say:

"The ancient or geographical county of Middlesex includes metropolitan parishes north of the Thames (except North Woolwich), which now form part of the administrative county of London."

This section up to here seems to have been added by User:Lancsalot at 00:56, January 11, 2008 . Please remember to add your signature!

Sorry. But a few editors will appreciate the importance of this information. Lancsalot (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure they will, and I wasn't doubting that. I was merely trying to make clear who wrote the above.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This is really is old news and the type of stuff discredited time and time again by the editting community. Indeed how a gazetteer of 1894-5 can be accepted as commentary on an act of government taking place in 1888 I really do not know. Besides, a consensus exists; We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
"Indeed how a gazetteer of 1894-5 can be accepted as commentary on an act of government taking place in 1888 I really do not know." Did u really write that? Lancsalot (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, I misread this. In utter rage of your return ;). The policy and community feeling on this still stands however. I don't think it's going to be feasible that you're ideas (which appear to have changed little) are going to be accepted or facilitated by the community. A spade is spade as they say, and these kind of ideas on minor technicalites and carefully selected quotes are considered fringe views. You need to take your ideas to Wikipedia:Village pump I believe, if you wish to change WP:PLACE. I would also urge you to downplay any militancy in canvassing other users; this isn't a war, just a discussion page. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid u r betrayed by your prejudice on this issue. The sign of an intellectually honest man is that, when confronted with overwhelming evidence against his prior views, he will change his opinion. However I await the view of more sophisticated editors. Lancsalot (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, suggesting I'm somehow unsophisticated isn't particularly pleasant. Certainly in the year since you left Wikipedia (prior to a formal mediation hearing you were about to be taken to by User:Morwen on this matter of what she too called fringe or unusual views) the policy on civility has not changed. One could interpret your actions (which are within but your first few) as bad faith personal attacks. Please try to be more polite with your discussion in future; it is unlikely you will obtain a consensus in any matter being rude with other users.
That said, that a policy exists isn't a matter of prejudice, but a matter of fact, and one that cannot be so blindly dismissed. Indeed I actually pointed out a page with which you can try to facilitate your ideas. I would imagine that (once again) an overwhelming majority of users will dismiss these points. I would welcome a third opinion and have this issue closed. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Morwen claimed that "ancient or geographical" counties had been invented by ABC in the 1970s. I'm sure she believed this at the time, and I know she (and User:Lozleader) did some honest research on this so I have no cause for complaint. However, the above sources now online prove the claims of ABC to be correct. Lancsalot (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. I believe the issue to be far more complex. Namely, how many other sources use "geographical"? How reliable is the source? Why didn't the term catch on? Is this term familliar with readers? What does the term "geographical" mean or imply? Is a source so soon after the LGA1888 suitable for use with asserting modern usage, terms and understanding?... This is one source that uses the term, but this isn't in anyway an official or even widespread term; at best it is a secondary source and at double-best it may back-up one point within hundreds of discredited and totally bogus claims made by this "pressure group" ABC. Also, "geographical" isn't quite the same as "geographic" (which was once asserted here). Finally, We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries; this is a thorn in the side of this issue that isn't going to go away without a consensus (which, as the policy states, is unlikely due to it being a minority view). Even if we say in this article "Middlesex [and it is only Middlesex] was once called a "geographical county" shortly after a major boundary reform, by one secondary/tertiary source", this isn't going to do a great deal for the article anyway. Of course it is well known that Middlesex remained a geographic frame of reference for a while after the LGA1888, which is probably why the author introduced his/her original research. I'm sure you'll agree... right? -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The General Register Office is an official, primary source and is the best source we have as a contemporary interpretation of the LGA 1888. The point is that the counties were not legally altered by this Act and therefore remain in legal existence. Your desperate evasions are not remotely convincing. It's time to accept you were wrong and move on. Lancsalot (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Damn! Of course, how stupid of me, I've been wrong all this time!!... Sorry it's not going to happen, you need to be more realistic here and less personal. Some answers would have been nice, or some calm debate. Dismissing me is hardly going to persuade me. As it stands I'm merely aligned to the source material and consensus I've seen; Don't shoot the messenger! Again, having someone reply to you, provide a few concerns and queries only for you to call them "desperate evasions" isn't particularly helpful or civil. I would urge you to be less dismissive of users who may or may not have alternative perspectives to yourself. I've read (and in some cases now own) the books, seen the debates and I'm totally comfortable with where verifiability and commonsense lies; I'm satified with the policy (WP:PLACE) as it stands now, and believe it outlines several reasons why this kind of view based on selective quotes and minor technicallities is totally unhelpful for a modern encyclopedia with a modern readership. Even if you convinced me these counties exist in law (which frankly I'm not too interested in), or a thousand others, we do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. Even if the counties still exist in law (but in a kind of purgatory state of unofficial uncommon geographic recognition), the policy still stands.... Of course, one could pull out the sources that state that these former counties are just that, former counties, but we've been through this all before. I didn't evade the source provided but was concerned as to its relevance; I'd be interested to know how one can evade WP:PLACE and the "former counties" sources (ones which the vast majority of people are aligned too). Wikipedia's British geography articles have flourished with this issue (championed pretty much singlehandedly by yourself in 2006) being dead for so long. I see little scope to action any of the changes you desire here; try not to take that personally, it's just my belief. I don't know what else to say other that I wish you luck. Don't forget though... We do not take... -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there isn't anything new in any of this. We have dealt with the wording of the 1888 act, the census reports and all of the above before. My best advice is to search through the original debates on these matters (there is lots available) as the facts have not changed, or the project's position. Furthermore, I don't think its right to give oxygen to an old, long and counterproductive debate. MRSC • Talk 15:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're sticking with the original conclusion of the debate? Lancsalot (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Lancsalot, you are entirely right. Unfortunately it seems that some people seem convinced that policy over-rides reality. User Jza84 has just admitted that he's not too interested in whether the ancient counties exist in law! I cannot myself believe the lawful existence is an 'extreme or minority view' with which an encyclopedia shouldn't concern itself. The current policy seems ill-conceived and half-baked in the extreme, and the censi quotes you provide are welcome in further clarifying the legal status of the ancient counties. However, the argument seems to be that even though the current policy doesn't allow fair representation of the facts, it cannot be changed. This is clearly a nonsense in a consensus-driven project, and the not insignificant numbers of editors unhappy with the current policy are testament to the lack of consensus. It has been several years since the WP:PLACE policy seems to have been discussed properly, and I think it's high time the matter was reopened, in order to better reflect and preserve accuracy and reality throughout wikipedia. We must be wary of being fobbed off with replies stating that it was discussed years ago and can't be re-opened - the simple facts of the matter is a) the current treatment of the ancient counties is neither accurate nor verifiable and b) there is a growing lack of consensus. I read your proposal for seperating off pre-1974 administrative counties, and I must say it was shouted down by many users who clearly didn't understand the purpose of what you were trying to do, nor the inherent benefits in clearly distinguishing between discrete entities. This sort of wiki-mob-rule is not the way the create an accurate and perspicacious encyclopedia. I fully endorse any attempt you make to open a much-needed discussion on this matter. An Edwardian Sunday (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As a new Wikipedian, but with a longstanding interest in this matter, I have been shocked to read through the diatribes leading to what Jza84 describes as a consensus. The facts are quite plain and are laid out in both the 1888 & 1972 Acts.

The Statutory Counties still exist. New Administrative Counties - for solely administrative purposes - were created in 1889, but all the new Councils failed to use the word Administrative - sowing the seeds for this misunderstanding a century later. In 1974 all the Administrative Counties were abolished and new, Metropolitan or Non-Metropolitan, Councils were created. Once again, the Councils omitted part of their titles. Since then there have been more changes, leading to the present chaos of over 200 local authorities of almost a dozen different kinds.

If you want to persist with this framework, then fine. Just stop perpetuating the falsehood that you are discussing the Statutory Counties and start using the heading Administrative Units of Local Government. DavidFRAS (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hundred governance

What is the correct way to describle the governance of a hundred? Hundred court, Hundred meeting? MRSC • Talk 16:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the system was uniform, but Salfordshire had a pan-hundred court at Salford (hense the name). I'm not sure about the rest, but this may be an indicator. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I've seen a few references to Hundred court. I think I'll go with that unless there was an alternative arrangement. Thanks. MRSC • Talk 19:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hundred court is the term used in material discussing the governance of Cheshire, although a local term (probably arising from Cheshire Palatine status) was sometimes used, they claim: tourn. Sources I've used are the Victoria History (Vol 1) for Cheshire, and Dorothy J Clayton's (1990) book: The administration of the county palatine of Chester 1442-85. A few more sources to give confidence, I hope.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Domesday map

Ought this map go? I know we've discussed this in the past. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

unless we can quickly make it accurate, it would be better of gone, I think. I'm busy trying to make up some maps about the Diocese of Chester at the moment (with later ones about old administrative boundaries within Cheshire, including the Hundreds boundaries), but I'm struggling to sort out a problem with Vista and a scanner the moment which is hampering things a bit.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll tag the map for deletion then, even if just to stimulate a debate about it.
On another note, the Chester/Lancaster issue remains outstanding here yes. I just learned that Salford was anceintly within the Earldom of Chester. I'm not familliar with Earldom's in the slightest, but there seems to be a connection with the shires. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but don't think it is outstanding, if you read the footnotes (numbers 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18) I have added about the matter in this article, in History of Lancashire (footnotes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), History of Cheshire (footnotes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), and so on (there are a few others, including some of the Hundreds articles, like Hundreds of Cheshire and Blackburn (hundred).) As I understand it, the connection via possession by an Earldom doesn't imply that they were administratively under the same structures, since various Earls had various possessions in sometimes quite disparate areas of the UK and abroad, and they didn't come under unified administrations as a result. This is discussed in one of the Cheshire Community County books in its series on the History of Cheshire in addition to the Victoria History books. The Victoria History series for Cheshire and the most recent of the various other reliable sources for the History of Cheshire seem all now to agree that the actual boundaries of Cheshire was the Mersey. "Inter Ripam et Mersham" now is said not to be allocated to any county at the time of Domesday, and its close connection with Cheshire was due to its geographical closeness and its returns being bound in with the same set of pages as the returns for Cheshire in the actual book(s) that made up the Domesday books. If you think what I've written is not sufficient, or is actaully inaccurate, let's see if we can sort it out.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
My choice of words was poor there I think, very poor. I think the footnote system has clarified the position more than adequately. I just wondered how the Earldom of Chester fitted into the system, as I haven't seen anything about this in an article until yesterday. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
My understanding (and I may have to go back and re-read some things) is that within Cheshire, the palatine status of the county meant that the Earldom treated its Cheshire possessions as almost a semi-autonomous part of England at the time (I've over-simplified it). Outside of Cheshire, I think the Earldom's possessions were on a much more equal status to any other possessions by any other Earldom within the main body of England (excepting Palatine counties) at the time. Is that the kind of thing you are looking for? I think Demesne, and related articles might give some kind of insight into this, but I find specific information a bit hard to come by, and I remain a little unclear about things myself (which is why I haven't been confident about writing stuff including any of this into articles yet.)  DDStretch  (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
County Palatine may also have some useful information, references, or links as well.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Historic?

Shouldn't the word "historic" be replaced by "historical" throughout this article? (Consult a dictionary for the difference!) --Dr Greg (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Can of worms!... I believe "Ancient" has been explored/suggested in the past. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the relevant discussion and decision on the article name was in Sept 2006 here. In the wider world there doesn't seem to be any clear preference of "historical" over "historic" - for a good example of the confusion see this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

For an authoritative account of what the counties were called by at least some experts, one can use Youngs excellent book as a source (Youngs, F. A. (1991), Guide to the local administrative units of England. Volume II: Northern England, London: Royal Historical Society, ISBN 0861931270.) There are three names that have been used for the type of counties (using Youngs pages about Cheshire on page 637 to give the terms): Ancient County (up to 1889); Administrative County (from 1889 to 1974); and Non-Metropolitan County (after 1974, but also Metropolitan Counties for certain ones of the other counties.) I think the use of "Historic Counties" was originally a neologism, introduced by other encyclopaedias, and sometimes used subsequently by various pressure groups who may have a different view of what boundaries are still in operational place. Incidentally, the boundaries were hardly fixed in any of those eras (once again, as can be seen by a mere cursory look at Youngs book, for example), though that is sometimes not kept clear in people's minds when arguing about this, and so, as Jza84 said, it is a can of worms.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I note that Ancient counties of England is a redirect pointing to this article, and Administrative counties of England exists as a separate article with a redirect pointing to it called Administrative counties in England, though so does and article: Administrative county for which there is quite a bit of overlap. I do think there is a problem with the naming here, because there are seeming inconsistencies in the articles. For example, in Administrative counties of England we read: "The administrative counties didn't exist prior to 1889, see historic counties of England for the history of the English counties before then." (similar statements are made in a number of places in this article.) In this article we see in section 1.2 a list: List of ancient counties of England by area in 1891, which seems to be inconsistent, as by then, the other article suggests they had been replaced by the administrative counties. The apparent inconsistency needs some clarification. In section 2 of this article, we read: "The county boundaries were fairly static between the 16th century Laws in Wales acts and the Local Government Act 1888.[12]" (with the reference being to the Vision of Britain website.) I think this is unclear because of the imprecise word "fairly". As I stated, Youngs book gives information about how the boundaries changed over time, and the application of "fairly" is not supported by the website reference given, though the website does mention boundary changes. "fairly" is WP:SYNTHESIS that doesn't seem to be an all together accurate synthesis. I found these on a purely cursory glance, and there may be more on more detailed examination.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes it quickly gets complicated. I would be of the opinion that historic (aka ancient) counties came to an effective end in 1889 when both a.) administrative counties and county boroughs were formed, and b.) "geographic" counties (an unofficial, but widely used term in the 1888 debates and later) used for other purposes were defined as consisting of groupings of admin. counties and co. boroughs. The most striking break from the old pattern was the creation of the County of London, of course.
It is interesting to note in 1887 - 1888 there was a boundary commission trying to redraw the county map, and make each county have a single boundary for all purposes including poor law, civil registration, lieutenancy, local government etc. Also the original Local Government Bill of 1888 simply talked about "counties": which were expected to be defined by the boundary commission. It was only after all sorts of local interests (MPs, mostly) had managed to separate out things like the Soke of Peterborough or West Suffolk that the distinction between "county" and administrative county" had to be made, while the poor old boundary commission's reports were simply to be given to the new county councils for them to consider.
The 1889 counties were the "successors" to the historic/ancient counties: the lord lieutenants (or "her majesty's lieutenant of and in the county of X" continued in office, and the various county justices carried on within the new boundaries. And from then on when a local government boundary moved the county went with it.
So where does that leave us? Should this article end in 1889? Yes, probably: otherwise we have to include the County of London as a historic county! Of course, if it was called ancient counties it would be much more easy to draw the line. We could have an article called Counties of England 1889–1974 but that is probably a great way to confuse the reader!
Incidentally in the mid 1970s encyclopedia places like Huntingdonshire or Westmorland were described as "former counties".Lozleader (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The bottom line is that official bodies, including the central government, have generally (but not always) viewed counties purely as administrative areas, which have come into being, later been abolished, etc. However, some (many?) people have attached to (some of) those areas (and their boundaries) wider cultural values over the years (in many cases, centuries), which means that, irrespective of whether they continue to exist as units of local government administration, they continue to exist as real current cultural entities (for those people). In that sense, although the "ancient counties" may have "ended" as areas of administration in 1889 or whenever, they are still, in many cases, real current entities, however "illogical" other people may see that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely, for non-statutory purposes... as was recognised in 1974 [2].
There is, however, quite a bit of inconsistency. This is hardly surprising as the boundaries were never static, and different cultural/sporting organisations group areas or clubs for their own logical reasons. The paramaount example usually given is cricket: the County Cricket Council passed a resolution in December 1888 that "that for purposes of cricket county boundaries are not affected by the Local Government Act 1888". This was principally due to concerns about the implications of the creation of the County of London on Kent and Surrey (curiously no mention of Middlesex). They seem to have softened their position as cities such as Birmingham and Sheffield expanded across county boundaries, presumably for practical reasons.
Generally speaking it seems to be the mid-nineteenth century (post 1844) to mid-twentieth century (1965?) incarnations of the counties that have been perpetuated. There are probably some interesting socio-economic explanations for this (emergence of masss-media/literacy?, Widening of franchise?). It is also a point of interest that some old county boundaries seem to have been all but forgotten. For instance, Halesowen was in Shropshire for centuries up to 1844, but only family historians seem to be aware of this!
And of course a Cumberland sausage remains a Cumberland sausage! Lozleader (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to second Dr Greg's suggestion that the term "historical" should replace "historic" in this article and on all other articles concerning the former demarcations of English counties. But I would also like to put forward the idea of using "former" rather than "historic" in order to avoid subjective entries with regard to these former realms. Referring to the article for Yorkshire as an example, the opening statement asserts that "Yorkshire is a historic county of northern England and the largest in the United Kingdom." Now, using the wikipedia article on local government in England as a point of reference, there is no such legal definition of a local government area as a "historic" county and we all know that the passing of the local government act 1972 means that there is no longer a single county of Yorkshire. I understand that there was once a debate about prior usage of the term "traditional county," and so I believe that employing "historic" suggests a degree of subjectivity on the part of authors, and so I would like to ask what are other users' thoughts on this article's name being changed to "Historical counties of England" or "Former counties of England?" Tong22 (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In my view, there's no need to change the current title. The comment that "we all know that the passing of the local government act 1972 means that there is no longer a single county of Yorkshire" is "we all know" true in the sense of an administrative area, but not true in other important senses - which is why there is no "East Yorkshire County Cricket Club", for example. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ancient (revisited)

Ancient counties seems like it might be a better term. I agree that we should be careful to understand that administrative boundaries aren't the be all and end all here. There are all kinds of geographical regions which are not administrative units, no? john k (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently reading Hackwood, F. W., (1920), "The story of the shire". There is no mention of "historic counties" and one mention of "ancient counties". As others have noted Youngs, F. A. (1991), Guide to the local administrative units of England also uses "ancient" as does http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk which is based on that source. I think the move is uncontroversial given it reflects source material. MRSC (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I support the move. Although "historic counties" may well be the term that is most frequently used in general parlance (see previous discussions), I think "ancient counties" wins out by virtue of the fact that it is less ambiguous and seems to have the weight of the most authoritative technical sources behind it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
There is some overlap, I see "historic boundaries" used in some sources and I have retained that in this article. MRSC (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I know this after the fact, but would agree with the move, adding the additional point that the census reports of 1891/1901 (from memory) use the term.Lozleader (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

William of Malmesbury

Hackwood, F. W., (1920) gives the William of Malmesbury (c. 1080–c. 1143) list of counties:

  • Nine counties under West Saxon law: Kent, Sussex, Surrey, " Hantshire," Berkshire, Wiltshire, Somerset, Dorset, and Devonshire
  • Eight were under Mercian law: Oxford, Warwick, Hereford, Gloucester, Shropshire, Stafford, Worcester, and Cheshire
  • Fifteen under Danish law: Essex, Middlesex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Hertford, Cambridge, Bedford, Buckingham, Huntingdon, " Northamton," Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, Lincoln, and Yorkshire

MRSC (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hackwood

I don't have the book, but I query the statement, referenced to him, that "Counties ending in the suffix "-set" identify areas that were inhabited by settlers." Is that in fact what he says? So far as I was aware, the term "saete" referred to the "set" or "tribe" of people who lived within a particular area - "Dorset" being the people who lived in and around Dorchester, etc. Saying that they were "settlers" implies that they were newly arrived from elsewhere, which I'm not sure was the case. If he said it, he said it, but did he give any supporting evidence? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the quote: "Although Wessex disappeared from the map, its divisions retain good Teutonic names. In the names Dorset and Somerset, the terminal 'set' or seat, signifies the habitation of settlers. MRSC (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll check out other refs some time to see whether that view still holds good. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Dorset in the Cambridge County Geographies series of 1909 reckons that Dorset is derived from "settlements in the area of the Durotriges", i.e. "Saxon" settlements in the area of a "Celtic" tribe. This doesn't seem to be a theory that has much currency now. The Somerset and Wiltshire volumes don't make such a claim for "soetas" or "saetas" in those county names.Lozleader (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
This current site says: "Dorset is [literally] the saete, "inhabitants", of Duro- or Doro- country, that territory centred on Dorchester, the Roman-founded castra/ceaster of the indigenous Iron Age Durotriges. Its partner territory is Somerset..." Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

London

A number of other boroughs in the area were constituted counties corporate by royal charter. - Which boroughs does this refer? MRSC (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is referring to a number of other boroughs in *Southern England* (Bristol, Norwich etc.). Probably a paragraph break or rewording is needed to make it clearer.Lozleader (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Shire/Share

The county geographies published by the Cambridge University Press in the first two decades of the twentieth century and edited by Francis Henry Hill Guillemard all contain a short chapter entitled "County and Shire. Meaning of the Word." The thesis was that "shire" was related to the verb to shear and represented something that had been shorn from a larger entity. Shires were "shares" of a larger territory.

This was then used to explain why some counties ended in "shire" while others didn't. Those that approximated to entire kingdoms or tribal territories (eg Kent, Sussex) were not shares of a bigger area and therefore no "shire" suffix. Those that were formed by dividing a kingdom did have the suffix: Staffordshire and Warwickshire being "shares" of Mercia for example. In the case of Somerset/Somersetshire both forms were seen as correct as Somerset as a unit predated Wessex, but it was also a "share" of Wessex when it was divided into shires.

Not sure if this theory holds water now? Is it worth mentioning? Lozleader (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the kind of thing that modern scholars would dismiss, although I couldn't say for sure. john k (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, its probably nonsense. Doesn't seem to match the etymologies found in modern dictionaries in any case. Lozleader (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Middlesex error

Middlesex, which is labelled 22 in the legend, is labelled 16 in the 2nd picture. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for spotting. MRSC (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Start/end dates for palatines

  • Durham: end 1836 - Durham (County Palatine) Act 1836 c19
  • Lancaster: start 1351, end 1875 Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 (36 & 37 Vict c66)

Any others? MRSC (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Isle of Ely is listed by Webb & Webb under their bit on palatine counties. Ended in 1837: Liberty of Ely Act, 1837 (7 Will 4 & 1 Vict c.53)(I think)Lozleader (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Might be worth adding a "major divisions" list to the table to deal with this? Also, if we can track down a decent source that gives origins/start dates for some of the counties, that could go in. MRSC (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Have been working on something here for a long time... I have pasted the relevant part of this article there for editting too. There is a distinction to be made between divisions of counties (which possessed all or some of the machinery of a county) and subdivisions (hundreds and the like that were definitely subordinate to the county).Lozleader (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshire

The three ridings of Yorkshire appear to be treated much like separate counties before 1889. County reports in census returns before 1891 reflect the three ridings, but not the divisions of Sussex or Lincolnshire. Do we have a source that says this explicitly (I feel like I have seen this somewhere - can't remember) and preferably with a date from which this started to happen? MRSC (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

They had separate lieutenancies from (I think) the reformation. As far as I can see the only office common to the "county at large" was the shrievalty.

"...Yorkshire, having only one Sheriff, might have to be regarded as one county; but there was and is no Custos Rotulorum or Lord-lieutenant for Yorkshire, nor any Commission of the Peace, Quarter Sessions, Grand Jury, County Rate or civil administration for the geographical county."Webb, Sidney; Webb, Beatrice (1906). "Appendix to Chapter I: Some Anomolous County Jurisdictions". English Local Government from the Revolution to the Municipal Corporations Act: The Parish and the County. London: Longman Green. p. 341.

Lozleader (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Before 1832, they elected their knights of the shire in common, no? john k (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed and they did Lozleader (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Each riding had a separate custos rotulorum from 1544, so there's another date... [3] Lozleader (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok here are some dates:
  • 1544: Separate custodes rotulorum for 3 ridings
  • 1660: Separate lord lieutenants for 3 ridings
  • 1832: Divided for parliamentary elections
  • 1864: Divided for assizes: The North and East Riding assizes to continue being held at York, West Riding assizes at Leeds."No. 22862". The London Gazette. 10 June 1864.
Lozleader (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Traditional?

I know we've discussed this before, but to repeat: a review of the literature only finds "traditional" as concept of the ABC, including the data that they supplied to the Royal Mail for the alias file. MRSC (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is not where the expression comes - I've no idea where it comes from, it isn't relevant. The point is whether the expression is used, and there is ample evidence that it is. If the Royal Mail and Postcomm use it, that ought to be enough. --Mhockey (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
They use it because the ABC lobbied them to include their gazetteer data on the Alias file. It originates from ABC and relates to their dataset of what the "traditional counties" are, i.e. their "unmovable counties". This does not equal the ancient counties, detailed in this article. MRSC (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That may be, but what is the point you're making? You are not, I think saying that the expression is used only by the ABC. You may not like the ABC or their lobbying (I don't much either), but if the term is actually used (whether or not as a result of the ABC's lobbying), you have to respect that. WP is about the world as it is, not about how you or I want it to be.

A few more references with no obvious connection with the ABC:

and within WP:

etc, etc

It seems to me pretty clear from the evidence that the term is widely used, and as far as I can see, at least when used in the context of English counties, used to mean the pre-1974 counties. --Mhockey (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the academic literature around this subject finds the terms "ancient county" and "historic county". Both these are taken to mean any county that was established in antiquity, including those that have been abolished and those that still exist with adapted boundaries.
The ABC espouse an alternative paradigm that appears to originate in the 1980s/1990s where at some point (possibly 12th century) "traditional counties" were formed. At some later stage (possibly 1889) new administrative areas "wrongly" called counties are formed, later adjusted (1965/1974) and at other times. However the 12th century "traditional counties" have continued to exist unchanged. The ABC have lobbied various organisations and used publicity to broadcast this view. This is the origin of the term and its meaning.
The point is that "traditional counties" is a disputed concept and one that originates from ABC. It is not the same thing "ancient county" or "historic county" (these are things where it is accepted in the literature that they can be abolished and adapted). We should base the article on academic sources, not relay neologisms invented by the ABC, even if they have been repeated by other groups. MRSC (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Who, other than the ABC and its supporters, argues that "traditional counties" cannot be abolished or adapted? Certainly not the Royal Mail.

2. There's nothing in WP:SOURCE which says we should only use academic sources, far from it. On matters of current usage, there may well be more reliable sources. Are you aware of any academic studies of the current use of the term?

3. Are you saying that all of the sources I have cited (and I am sure that I could find plenty more) are "relaying neologisms invented by the ABC"? Counties of Iceland? Hampshire County Council? The Independent in 1993? Seems a bit unlikely. But even if it were true, it would not detract from the point that the expression is widely used. That is the issue, not whether academic literature uses the term, or whether it expresses an alternative paradigm espoused by the ABC, or whether it is a disputed concept, or whether it originated from the ABC, or whether it is a neologism. --Mhockey (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact an error is repeated does not make it true. MRSC (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, in what sense is it an error? Are you saying that it is not true that the expression "traditional counties" is widely used for the pre-1974 counties? --Mhockey (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not true. A review of the literature shows "ancient county" and "historic county" are far more common, and that "traditional county" originates with the ABC. MRSC (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So it's not true that "traditional county" is widely used? I have produced plenty of evidence above, in addition to its use by the Royal Mail and Postcomm. I don't know what more evidence you want. You may well be right that "ancient county" and "historic county" are more common, but why is that relevant? We're not discussing those terms. I have no idea whether the term originated with the ABC, but why is that relevant? We're not discussing the origin of the term, we're discussing its current use. --Mhockey (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "traditional county" is particularly widely used: probably less than than (say) "old county". The bph postcodes site can be discounted as it is dealing with the PAF alias data (ABC derived). The Independent article uses "old", "historic" and "traditional" interchangably, presumably for stylistic reasons (I dare say the author, like myself, was taught at school not to repeat a word where an alternative is available. Variety makes a text less montonous). The other sites are more or less amateurish and inexpert (the junior school text is pasted from Wikipedia).
The paragraph we already have:

These groups seek to promote greater public awareness of what they term "traditional counties" and broadly wish to see counties realigned to the historic boundaries.

surely covers the usage adequately?
I have dug around into the sources at the time of the 1965/1974 changes and "traditional county" was not in evidence, although reference to "traditional county boundaries" (and how the new geography largely and sometimes surprisingly retained them) was. "Old" or "former" counties were the preferred and more accurate terms.
I would be nervous about re-introducing the label here as Wikipedia has in the past been used as a place to plant misinformation to support a fringe position. It's fairly clean at present but this could lead to unproductive edit wars. (It is also clear that the ABC traditional counties are not necessarily the same thing as the ancient counties. They seem to be the 1844-1889 version of the counties which is a pretty brief span in the long run.)
Lozleader (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful not to be too influenced by the views of the ABC. There seems to be this logic going on: "The ABC believes that the ancient counties still exist"; "The ABC uses the term traditional counties"; therefore "The term traditional counties is only used by people who think that the ancient counties still exist". There seems to be a logical fallacy here.

None of the words "ancient, "historic" or "traditional" necessarily means that the thing described still exists, or indeed that it does not still exist (Stonehenge is ancient, but it still exists; Westminster Abbey is historic, but it still exists). They are neutral in that respect. Indeed the ABC also uses the term "historic counties" on its website. So does the Historic Counties Trust. So do the Friends of Real Lancashire.--Mhockey (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

ABC only started using the term "historic" after Wikipedia started expunging "traditional" from the encyclopaedia. I don't think you realise the extent to which the ABC hijacked Wikipedia for their own promotion. HCT and FORL are part of ABC. MRSC (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
But what should be our reaction? You seem to be suggesting that we should stop using the term historic counties too. Let's hope they don't start using ancient counties! We should do what is right for Wikipedia, and not be influenced by ABC. --Mhockey (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where you are getting that idea from, although the second part of your statement is correct. MRSC (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

SVG maps

The Historic County Border Project has a free shapefile dataset for the counties, which appears to be following the ABC definition of the counties. I can use this to create both a national map (for England) and to provide updates for ones File:Historical and current boundaries of Lancashire.png, directly comparing the historic and modern. I'm not 100% sure about whether I should create the maps, is there a potential original research issue?--Nilfanion (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't touch their maps with a bargepole. The "Historic Counties Trust" turned out to the ABC under an alias see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Historic_Counties_Trust. Their "Historic Counties Standard" is something of their own invention =original research.
We need to stick to maps which specify the date (as boundaries were in constant flux) and are derived from a reliable source. I believe User:MRSC, who provided the map in the infobox, bases his maps on realiable academic geographical datasets (he pointed me at the souce once, but I can't find the relevant talk page)Lozleader (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thought that was probably case here (the lack of a precise date is something guaranteed to get alarm bells ringing). I'm sorely tempted to contact the GB historical GIS project and see if I can obtain their boundary data, but don't have real experience in the "please let me have X under a free license" type emails. I assume MSRC is watching this page, I know I'd certainly find that data very helpful with my ongoing map work.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviations

As one who was an inky clerk in the days before postcodes I noticed some glaring omissions that I've rectified by reference to my 1974 Concise Oxford Dictionary plus 'Co. Durham' which I don't think was ever rendered in full. This source omits three that I recall using Mddx for Middlesex, Nflk for Norfolk and Sflk for Suffolk. Can anyone legitimise these? S a g a C i t y (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, no... but have found some more (Mx for instance!). My COD is even older than yours!Lozleader (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historic_counties_of_England/Archive_4&oldid=1154210834"